Monday, November 30, 2015

Recently PCG's Joel Hilliker made an article absurdly insisting that since homosexuality is now legal that there is nothing to prevent pedophilia getting legalized in turn.

This is complete nonsense. Consensual relations that happen to be homosexual was legalized. Pedophilia is not consensual. The victim is too young to give consent. Rape and sexual coercion in whatever form it may take (heterosexual, homosexual, pedophilia) is illegal. That will not be changing.

Some have written comments about Hilliker's article.

Before we see these comments I wish to state here that I regard these commenters as victims. They are being misinformed. Their trust in PCG is being used to keep them fearful of something that will never happen.

Because of Hilliker's article parents are scared that pedophilia will soon become legal.

This is SO disgusting and reprehensible. This world is truly so sick. As
a mother to a young daughter, I am more grateful than ever to be able
to teach her God’s truth and to seek His protection. How I long for the
day when all children will be protected and every stranger is someone
who cares in agape.

Here is another comment.

Horrifying’ That’s the word that comes to mind! The argument, ‘ Its not
my business what somebody else does in the privacy of their own bedroom,
‘ surely falls flat on its face at this point. Now this way of thinking
becomes a threat to every child and to every family in the nation!

Actually pedophilia is still illegal. If one commits a crime within "the privacy of their own bedroom" it is still illegal.

Here's one reader who seems to think a popular TV show is part of the (non-existent) conspiracy to legalize pedophilia. And then adds in a nasty dose of xenophobic racism against Muslims as well.

Its sickening for certain, I recently saw a Law and Order TV show where a
group of men were trying to convince a judge that it is normal feeling
of love between parents and their children. The media is trying to help
normalize it as quickly as they can. I suppose it’s a normal
thing in Muslim countries already, since they sell children openly. I’ve
always thought that anyone whom calls Muhammad a “holy man” is very
sick because of his immorality with children. Its frightening that it
could become legal in the modern nations of Israel, but it’s easy to see
where we are headed.

One particularly grotesque thing about Hilliker's article is that it is distressing towards survivors of pedophilia. It is particularly shameful to frighten survivors of pedophilia with fanciful fear mongering that pedophilia will soon be legalized. It is not going to happen. I hope these persons get the help they need.

Here is another reader shocked by Hilliker's nonsensical article.

Well, this certainly was a hard article to swallow—I think it’s still
stuck in my throat, actually. The implications of this are huge! Will
they lower the age of ‘consent’ for children so that these pedophiles
can be gratified? If this is where it’s going, then it will also lead
to normalizing rape. We certainly need God’s perfect law to clean all
this up and so that everyone can live a pure, happy life!

Meanwhile as these persons are unnecessarily distressed by fears of what will never happen Hilliker is living here funded by money sent to PCG.

In the October 2015 issue of PCG's recruitment magazine, The Philadelphia Trumpet, PCG's writers included an article by Dennis Leap ("Trafficking Aborted Baby Body Parts") that cited certain videos produced by an anti-abortion, pro-life organization named the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) that condemned Planned Parenthood as supposedly selling body parts of aborted fetuses. The article is accompanied with an infographic entitled "For Sale: Aborted Fetal Parts."

In the article Leap cites Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards talking about the problem of those who use violence and terrorism to oppose abortion. Leap seems to think such talk is just a PR trick to distract people from opposing abortion.

In an interview with ABC News, Richards blasted the CMP
videos, calling them “highly selectively edited” videos released by
“militant anti-abortion activists.” Richards also told host George
Stephanopoulos that the videos “are part of the most militant
anti-abortion movement that has been behind the bombing of clinics, the
murder of doctors in their homes and in their churches, and that’s what
actually needs to be looked at.”

The effort to demonize the CMP
deflected people’s attention off Planned Parenthood’s fetal body parts
distribution practices. On July 28, Planned Parenthood hired the
high-profile Washington, D.C., public relations firm SKDKnickerbocker as it scrambled to deal with the ongoing scandal and CMP’s
vow to release a total of 12 videos. SKDKnickerbocker immediately went
to work to encourage journalists not to cover the story. (Dennis Leap, Trafficking Aborted Baby Body Parts, October 2015.)

It appears Richards was right to warn people of this problem. It is not a PR trick if it happens to be true. Leap was wrong to ignore her warning.

Last Friday some terrorist attacked a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs murdering three innocent people and wounding nine.

Here are the three beautiful and precious people who were murdered.

One police officer and two civilians were killed in the shootings. The officer was Garrett Swasey, a father of two and a church pastor. The civilians were Jennifer Markovsky and Ke’Arre Stewart.
Markovsky was a mother of two at the clinic to support a friend and
Stewart was a father of two and an Iraq veteran. Nine others were
wounded. (Daily Kos.)

It has been reported that the arrested suspect mumbled something about "baby parts".

In one statement, made after the suspect was taken in for questioning, [the suspect] said "no more baby parts" in reference to Planned Parenthood, two
law enforcement sources with knowledge of the case told NBC News.

But the sources stressed that [the suspect] said many things to law enforcement
and the extent to which the "baby parts" remark played into any decision
to target the Planned Parenthood office was not yet clear. He also
mentioned President Barack Obama in statements. (NBC News.)

The title of Dennis Leap's article is "Trafficking Aborted Baby Body Parts". The infographic is entitled "For Sale: Aborted Fetal Parts". Even if the perpetrator had nothing to do with PCG this is still very disturbing.

Be careful PCG. Some extremists do not know how to read between the lines and fail to imagine how such emotive talk might be used to serve other issues beneath the surface and just lash out instead.

Furthermore, even though CMP condemned the terrorist attack, it appears that there are worrying things about the organization that produced these videos condemning Planned Parenthood. One of the board members of CMP once called the murder of abortionists "justifiable defensive action".

The misleadingly named "Center for Medical Progress", the group that
produced the fraudulent Planned Parenthood tapes currently being cited
by Republicans in their attacks on the group, includes Operation Rescue
head Troy Newman as one of its only three listed board members.
That the organization would share such remarkably close ties to the
far-far-right Operation Rescue is hardly a coincidence, as Newman
encourages activists to engage in so-called "sting" operations against
healthcare providers. Newman, however, is more well-known for his
public declarations that the murder of American abortion providers
should legally be considered "justifiable defensive action" to "save the lives of the pre-born babies". Newman is also the author of a tract titled Their Blood Cries Out, a manifesto in which he explicitly called for the execution of abortion providers. (Daily Kos.)

Leap never talked about that in the article.

Well if Planned Parenthood is doing something wrong someone should investigate.

Turns out there have now been multiple investigations by this point and they found nothing illegal. Regardless of what thinks of abortion one still has to break the law before the authorities can prosecute. That does not appear to have occurred.

This is the fifth incidence of violence at a Planned Parenthood clinic since the videos have
been released. Planned Parenthood has denied the charges suggested in
the video and said that it only donates the tissue when patients request
it and does not make a profit. Making a profit off of the sale of fetal
tissue in the United States is illegal, and investigations of Planned
Parenthood at the state and federal level have found no wrongdoing. (Huffington Post.)

Turns out this deadly shooting was not the only such incident of violence against Planned Parenthood.

On Friday, September 4, a Planned Parenthood in Pullman, Washington, was set on fire a few hours before dawn; security footage shows
a "flammable object" being thrown through the clinic window.
Twenty-eight days later, a clinic in Thousand Oaks, California, was
firebombed in an almost identical manner. In mid-July, there was an attempted arson at an abortion provider in Aurora, Illinois, and on August 1, there was a car fire outside of a Planned Parenthood construction site in New Orleans. But most national media outlets didn't report on the attacks, and even fewer still connected them. (Vice News.)

Alas, such anti-abortion violence is not a new thing. Back in 1994 Stephen King published a novel, Insomnia, and a major plot point of that novel is extremism regarding abortion. One of the opening scenes of the novel features a character making accusations that aborted fetuses are being turned into fertilizer (if memory serves correctly). Imagining what happens to aborted fetuses is nothing new among those who oppose abortion.

Are PCG members aware that these things are happening? These events are not reported by PCG to my knowledge.

As far as I know PCG has still said nothing about this mass shooting.

PCG are far to the right in regards to politics. They live in an information bubble that leans so far to the right they fail to see how they might associate themselves with movements that they might be better off staying away from. One should educate oneself about the problems of extremism in order to avoid such problems of association.

The following quote is from a comment insinuating that "race riots" will soon occur. This alludes to PCG's false prophecy of "race war" which has been taught by PCG since 1992 (if not earlier).

I was thinking how the Biblical race riots were going to come about as I
didn’t perceive that much racial tension in the country. With these
last few articles I can now begin to see them beginning to form to come
to a head. as they have been created by those yelling and screaming for
them to stop while making up or inventing issues that weren’t even
there. The liberal ideology is the curse itself. Get back to the Bible
as this great land was created and founded on or watch it deteriorated
as it prophesies will happen. Then when Jesus Christ returns taking
over the throne of the god of this world satan He will institute a new
public world order whether anyone likes it or not. Can hardly wait for
that time to come but pray for it urgently. (Source.)

There will be no "race war" or "race riots" of the kind PCG teaches will soon occur. This idea is not from the Bible. It is PCG's own idea. It is a racist false prophecy (usually directed against African Americans) that will never happen.

President Obama is correct on this issue. In fact terrorists have used Guantanamo Bay in their propaganda to demonize and vilify the United States.

Observe what this Atlantic article from April 2013 said about this issue.

Guantanamo Bay has often been the focus of jihadist media and
propaganda. Just recently, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan--the
mouthpiece of the Taliban--
put out a statement calling
attention to the ongoing hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay. The brief
message claims that the hunger strike at the prison has been going on
for forty days
(as of March 24) and calls for international rights organizations to
"spread awareness about the plight of the destitute inmates."
Guantanamo Bay has
become a salient issue used in jihadist propaganda.

In 2010, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) released the
first issue of Inspire, their English language recruitment magazine. To date, AQAP has released 10 issues of Inspire, and the plight of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has
been featured prominently in several issues.

In the 2010 inaugural issue of Inspire,
an
essay by Osama bin Laden mentions "the crimes at Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo ... which shook the conscience of humanity." Tellingly, bin
Laden points out
that "there has been no mentionable change" at Guantanamo and the
prison is noted again later in the issue.

Gitmo features even more prominently in Issue 2 of Inspire.
The
essays of Abu Sufyan al-Azdi and Uthman al-Gamidi, two former
detainees who returned to AQAP upon their release, call new individuals
to join the jihad,
whether at home or abroad. In Issue 7, Yahya Ibrahim notes that Guantanamo
Bay "exposed the West for what it really is" and "showed the world the American understanding of human rights."

Most troubling, in the latest issue of Inspire
released
early this month, AQAP mentions Guantanamo Bay several times. In a
prelude to the attention that the hunger strikers have been paid lately,
Abu Musab
al-Suri notes that Guantanamo is not only "filled with ...
mujahedeen" but also with "hundreds of innocent civilians." While it is
quite rich to hear
AQAP's concern for the plight of innocent civilians, given the high
number of Yemenis cleared for release still at Guantanamo, this is a
very salient
message for AQAP's base in Yemen. (Thérèse Postel, "How Guantanamo Bay's Existence Helps Al-Qaeda Recruit More Terrorists", The Atlantic, April 12, 2013.)

One NGO, Human Rights First, has complied a list about 30 instances between 2009 and 2015 in which Al Qaeda, their miserable lackeys in Yemen and the genocidal murderers of ISIL have cited Guantanamo Bay in their deceptive and lying propaganda to demonize the United States.

So the truth is clear: The terrorists of Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda's lackeys in Yemen and the genocidal murderers of ISIL are using Guantanamo Bay in their propaganda against the United States.

While it is true that some former inmates of Guantanamo Bay linked up with terrorists after getting released it is misleading to insinuate that President Obama is somehow wrong to note that Guantanamo Bay is used in propaganda by terrorists. President Obama is correct on this issue.

Most of the people who have been murdered by ISIL in Iraq and Syria were Muslims. It is insulting to the Muslims murdered by ISIL to call the mass murderers of ISIL "Muslim terrorists". We must be careful to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent.

Never mind that the mastermind of the terrorist attacks went to ISIL in Syria. Never mind that he needed to be mesmerized by ISIL's control over parts of Iraq and Syria to be radicalized the way he was. ISIL's terrorist activities against the peoples of Iraq and Syria cost a lot of money and resources. ISIL's lying propaganda relies on these things to mesmerize and deceive recruits who are deceptively recruited to fight for ISIL, not Islam as ISIL's shameless recruiters falsely claim.

Seizing control of territory belonging to Iraq and Syria cost a lot of money. Paying thugs and murderers to maintain control over the people in land stolen by ISIL from the people of Iraq and Syria costs a lot of money. Producing deceptive propaganda to boast about such things cost a lot of money.

To only look at what it cost the terrorists to conduct their mass murder of the innocent people in Paris is a very limited and flawed way of viewing the tragic and situation in Paris. It ignores how ISIL needed to do all these other things to mesmerize and deceive people into carrying out the murderous intentions of ISIL.

While Palmer expresses sympathy for the Kurds within Turkey it should be stated that this contradicts what PCG's Joel Hilliker said about the Kurds in Turkey back in 1997.

Back then Hilliker fear mongered about the Kurds and vilified the Kurdish PKK as one of several alleged "Islamic forces" threatening Turkey. This fact may be seen in a previous post.

In addition, the U.S.’s support for Turkey
appears somewhat unstable, as America seems unwilling to offend Greece.
By indirectly helping Greece, America is in effect also helping Syria,
Iran, and Russia—and even the PKK [Kurdistan Workers' Party]
forces within
Turkey. If the trend continues, these Islamic forces without
and within her borders might take over. (Joel Hilliker, Turkey: An Act of Revenge, December 1997, p. 2.)

Is it accurate to call the PKK as one of several "Islamic forces" that "might take over" Turkey? I wrote the following in that post:

Also the Kurdistan Workers' Party is a far left, secular organization.
Just look at the name, "Workers' Party." How much more left wing can you
get? At the time the PKK had been waging an armed insurgency against
the Turkish government since 1984. Later [Sic. I now suspect this happened before 1997] NATO listed the PKK as a
terrorist organization because of its armed insurgency against the
Turkish government. So much for the United States supposedly "helping" the
PKK as Hilliker alleged here.

So what is going on? How should PCG members view the Kurds in Turkey?

Should PCG followers sympathize with Kurds in Turkey like Palmer?

Or should PCG followers view Kurds in Turkey negatively like Hilliker?

PCG cannot be right both times.

(Incidentally Richard Palmer once minimized the Srebrenica massacre in which about 8000 Bosnians were murdered as "a crime of passion".)

Protesting against racism is just like murdering your brother like Cain or calling for war, according to PCG's Joel Hilliker.

Students had been “sitting in grief” and “hurting” over a hate crime
they invented. They were rushing to the barricades of racial justice
over a fiction.

How many other improperly disposed-of bags of feces are being
trumped up into cause for war? This is a colorful metaphor for a problem
besieging America’s higher education: the hypersensitivity that
startles and then raises Cain over the slightest perceived offense. (Joel Hilliker, Microaggressions and Other Fictions, November 30, 2015.)

How ironic it is that while scolding anti-racism protesters for being "hypersensitive" Hilliker condemns them as using racism as a "cause for war" and of "rais[ing] Cain over the slightest perceived offense". Somehow that is not "hypersensitive" in Hilliker's eyes.

Sunday, November 29, 2015

Gerald Flurry has written an article (The Peace Lie, November 27, 2015) insisting that it is folly for the State of Israel to make peace with its neighbors.

Flurry asserts that soon America will lose international importance and be replaced by Britain before Britain herself is to be conquered.

As bad as Judah’s wound is, Ephraim’s sickness is even worse! That’s why
it is mentioned first. Manasseh, or America, isn’t mentioned at all
because it is more sick than Ephraim and has already faded from international relevance by this time. No man can heal these nations. Only God can.

Flurry then insists that Germany will soon arise as an unstoppable military superpower.

“The Assyrian” here is Germany. ... King Jareb is the Assyrian leader. “Jareb” means “warlike
monarch,” or “King Contentious,” as the Soncino Commentary
translates it. This leader is more dangerous than Adolf Hitler. If you
study history, you know that the German people routinely follow the lead
of some truly frightening men. They are a great people, but they have
not repented of their warlike ways.

Once again Flurry vilifies the German people. Flurry is wrong to insist that Germans are just waiting to plunge the world into another World War based on what HWA said for many years. This is not true. It will not happen.

But after 1973, following an unsuccessful attempt by the Arabs to conquer Judah once again...

Flurry means the State of Israel. It is confusing to misuse words incorrectly as is done here. But because of his British Israelism he cannot bring himself to call the Jewish citizens of the State of Israel as "Israel" since he constantly teaches that the United States and Great Britain are "Israel". Consequently PCG constantly use clumsy euphemisms to describe the State of Israel. Calling it "Judah" is but one example of this practice.

In 2005, Judah [Flurry means the State of Israel] evacuated 9,000 Jews from the Gaza Strip and turned the
territory over to Palestinian control. The enemy has used that land as a
launching pad for rockets aimed at Judah [Flurry means the State of Israel] ever since. Gaza is now a
proxy of Iran, the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
The West Bank Palestinians have also joined forces with the terrorists
in Gaza. So much for a peace pact.

It is intriguing that Flurry asserts that "Gaza is now a
proxy of Iran". Flurry is clearly alluding to Hamas. But recently PCG have been claiming that Hamas and Iran are no longer on good terms with each other. PCG have even said that Iran no longer funds Hamas in Gaza thus making it necessary for Hamas to seek funding elsewhere. That assertion is nowhere to be found in Flurry's article.

So what is happening? On the one hand PCG say Hamas and Iran are disillusioned with each other with Iran even cutting funding to Hamas. But now Flurry insists on portraying Iran and Hamas as being like hand and glove.

PCG cannot be right with both contrary opinions at the same time. Someone in PCG is wrong. How can readers trust what PCG say seeing this confusion?

Furthermore Flurry seems unaware of the fact that the evacuation of the settlers from Gaza was a cost cutting exercise, not a peace making exercise. One makes peace by talking to the other side, making an agreement and then enforcing it.

That did not happen with Gaza. Instead the Sharon led government unilaterally made the decision to evacuate the Israeli Jewish settlers out of Gaza.

Notice how it was described by then Minister of Finance Benjamin Netanyahu when he wrote a letter of resignation in protest against the evacuation of Israeli settlers in Gaza.

From the moment you [Prime Minister Sharon] presented your disengagement plan to me, I told you I was against a unilateral withdrawal in which Israel would receive nothing in return. (Dave Hunt, Judgment Day!, 2006, p. 229)

The
disengagement was "a unilateral withdrawal". The evacuation was not an attempt to make peace with the Palestinians. If it was such a move would have been mutually agreed upon by Israeli and Palestinian officials alike instead of the Israeli government simply making this decision by themselves.

The disengagement was not intended by the Israeli government to make peace with the Palestinians. It was a cost cutting exercise.

Now that the settlers had been moved out there was no need to use Israeli soldiers to protect those settlers. The Israeli soldiers proceeded to leave the Gaza Strip and continued to control and consequently occupy Gaza to this very day.

Let us now continue with Flurry's article.

Thanks to a foolhardy campaign promise by newly elected Israeli Prime
Minister Ehud Barak, the Israel Defense Forces withdrew from South
Lebanon in 2000 after 15 years of warfare with the Iranian-backed
Hezbollah terrorist organization. Of course, Hezbollah immediately
seized control of the area, and now Iran has Judah virtually surrounded.

The evacuation from Southern Lebanon was never intended to make peace. One makes peace by talking to the other side, making an agreement and enforcing it. That did not happen in 2000.

Just like the 2005 disengagement from Gaza, the evacuation of Southern Lebanon was a cost cutting exercise, not a peace making exercise. The Barak led government made no attempt to negotiate with the Lebanese government or Hezbollah about it. Instead it was decided to withdraw Israeli forces out of South Lebanon. This decision was made unilaterally by the Israeli government. (One intriguing article about this withdrawal may be found from The Times of Israel.)

But since the Israelis soldiers evacuated without making any peace agreement with either the Lebanese government or Hezbollah there could be no peace. One could say it would never work but not having such negotiations meant there would be no peace. The Barak led government's decision not to pursue any kind of negotiations guaranteed that hostility and belligerency would continue to scar and torment the border between the State of Israel and Lebanon.

Iran is no friend of Judah [Flurry means the State of Israel]. It is controlled by ayatollahs, the Islamist
extremist spiritual leaders of the country. Seemingly every week, these
madmen lead huge crowds in chants of “Death to America!” and “Death to
Israel!” They have branded America “the great Satan” and Judah “the
little Satan.” Their immediate goal is to wipe the Jewish nation in the
Middle East off the map.

And recently Iran's Supreme Leader said that the slogan "Death to America" was a protest against policies the Iranian government do not like. But PCG went out of their way to insist to their readers to pay no heed to what Iran's Supreme Leader should happen to say about their own slogan.

This paragraph fear mongering about Iran also ignores the fact that the State of Israel had armed and aided Iran during the 1980s and as late as 1987. This was done in order to counter Saddam Hussein led Iraq.

Israel, in fact, continued to supply the Khomeini regime with military equipment and ammunition at least until 1987. (Jeff Halper, War Against the People, Chapter 9, 2015.)

Furthermore these links between Khomeini led Iran and the State of Israel was later used by the Reagan Administration to covertly send military aid to Iran in a failed attempt to persuade Iran to secure the release of American hostages in Lebanon. This was later exposed as part of the Iran-Contra scandal.

It was only in the early 1990s under Prime Minister Rabin that the State of Israel reassessed the situation and determined that Iran was the primary adversary facing the State of Israel. One reason why Rabin made this change in viewpoint was to encourage Israelis to accept a peace deal with the PLO. Rabin was later tragically murdered by an Israeli extremist for his dealings with the Palestinians. This aspect of his policy has unfortunately been forgotten by his successors. (Gareth Porter, Manufactured Crisis, Chapter 5, 2014)

There is no judgment or wisdom in sitting across the negotiating table from avowed enemies—whether Iran, the PLO,
Hamas or Fatah. These Islamic radicals believe the only way their
messiah will return to Earth is if they slaughter as many people as
possible! They are also convinced that America, Britain and Judah are
Satan’s proxies and must be crushed from existence.

That accusation about them wanting "their messiah" to return to Earth seems to be a garbled reference to former Iranian President Ahmadinejad. PCG really should stop pretending that he is still there considering that Ahmadinejad went out of office in 2013.

It is wrong to say that Fatah is convinced that "America [is] Satan's [proxy] and must be crushed from existence" considering that Fatah has been negotiating with the State of Israel for many years and have relations with the United States. At least in regards to Fatah this accusation that they want to erase America from existence is wrong and absurd. To say such a thing contradicts the ninth commandment.

Judah [Flurry means the State of Israel] is by far the most powerful nation in the Middle East. It
possesses nuclear weapons, but it won’t confront the terrorists because
of the peace process. The other side doesn’t want a solution—they want war.
Winston Churchill said war is the only real way to solve anything with
carnal men. Our nations can either rely on God or crush the enemy, but
they refuse to take either action!

Often PCG portrays the State of Israel as helpless and as the victim. Earlier in this article Flurry states that "Iran has [the State of Israel] virtually surrounded" and yet here Flurry states that the State of Israel "is by far the most powerful nation in the Middle East."

Flurry does not support the State of Israel because it is weak. He just stated that the State of Israel "is by far the most powerful nation in the Middle East."

Flurry supports the State of Israel because he thinks the Israeli Jews are white like himself. His British Israelism imposes his own whiteness upon Israeli Jews. Consequently when he hears of violence committed against Israeli Jews he thinks it is "black on white violence". But if Palestinians should happen to suffer as a result of what Israeli personnel committed it is ignored.

(It must be mentioned that this dogma based on British Israelism disregards how Israeli Jews themselves view themselves. Flurry has imposed his own white identity upon Israeli Jews thus dehumanizing them by imposing his own white identity upon them by viewing them as whites.)

PCG supports the State of Israel for racist reasons. Supporting Israel should be done for good reasons, not because one thinks they are white. And certainly not because of the false dogma of British Israelism.

Back in 2008 PCG's Phillip Nice wrote an article ("Welcome to Pallywood," March 6, 2008) asserting that Israeli personnel could not have possibly killed 12 year old Mohammed al-Dura in September 2000 during the opening days of the second intifada. Let's see what Nice have to say about this.

***

This article somehow fails to cite any source for his assertions. Not even one news article. There are no links of any kind. Many assertions are made without any citations, footnotes or evidence to back up his claims. Even if they are true, or just partially true it is not possible for the reader to prove this for him or herself. The reader is essentially being asked to just trust Nice. That is not good enough.

***

On the 27th, a roadside bomb fatally wounded Sgt. David Biri, 19, of Jerusalem, near the Gazan village of Netzarim.

Natzarim was an Israeli settlement built by the Israeli government within the Gaza Strip. Only Jews were allowed to live in there. Palestinians were forbidden to live there. It was not just a village that happened to be in Gaza.

In 2005 the Sharon led Israeli government evacuated the settlers out of Gaza. One reason for this decision was to prevent the killing of Israeli soldiers present in the Gaza Strip such as the terrible death mentioned above. The Israeli soldiers were there in order to protect the settlers. By evacuating the settlers Israeli soldiers were no longer in harm's way inside Gaza. Afterwards the Gaza Strip would be controlled by Israeli personnel outside of Gaza. The Gaza Strip is still occupied by the State of Israel to this very day. However PCG condemned this move at the time.

While Nice is careful to describe this Israeli soldier by name will Nice provide similar compassion and regret for any Palestinian who dies?

***

Only the France 2 cameraman captures the most climactic, iconic and inflammatory 55 seconds of the day—and the entire intifada.

There were many problems that led up to the start of the second intifada. If this terrible tragedy had not occurred the second intifada would in all likelihood still have occurred.

***

Talal Abu-Rahma [the cameraman] immediately contacts Charles Enderlin, a respected
French journalist, who is on the other side of Jerusalem in Ramallah.

The tragic loss of life occurred in Gaza, not Jerusalem or Ramallah. Ramallah is another city. Although it is near Jerusalem it is no part of Jerusalem.

Considering this odd expression regarding geography what hope is there that Nice will inform his readers about what is happening?

***

Nice then describes what happened after the footage was released.

The footage creates a global firestorm. France 2 releases the segment to
other news outlets. Western networks and publishers widely reported the
tragedy, and local and regional networks broadcast the images of the
al-Duras hundreds of times, elevating Mohammed to martyr status and
establishing the ultimate intifada icon: a 12-year-old unarmed
Palestinian boy cut down in cold blood by savage Israeli troops. Soon,
the agonizing image of the boy’s crouching figure is plastered on
everything in the Arab world from gigantic murals to postage stamps.
Mohammed al-Dura becomes the name of parks, newborns, and the Cairo
avenue where the Israeli Embassy is located.

After mentioning those events Nice then proceeds to assert that the memory of this terrible loss of life have been exploited by some to commit bad things without bothering to provide even one citation to back up his emotive assertions.

It is also invoked by Osama
bin Laden, by multiple suicide bombers, by the terrorists who beheaded
Daniel Pearl, an American Jewish journalist for the Wall Street Journal;
and it is chanted by the Palestinian mob that bludgeoned and strangled
two Israeli reservists in Ramallah, then beat and dragged their corpses
to bits, cheering and holding aloft body parts.

Somehow Nice fails to provide any evidence or footnote that these things occurred. Maybe these things occurred just as Nice said. Or perhaps only in part. But it is not possible for his readers to know this him or herself just by reading this article.

***

Nice then recites the footage taken by reporters in the area at the time of the terrible killing. It is asserted that Palestinians behave suspiciously in the footage taken during the time of Mohammed al-Dura's death. It is asserted that some of what is shown makes no sense for a situation in which an deadly armed clash would occur.

But then you realize. You’ve just been to Pallywood.

Pallywood is grittier than Hollywood, less musical than Bollywood,
but it has its own actors, directors, props, storylines, sets, special
effects, professional film crews—and worldwide audiences. It is a
recognized phenomenon in which Palestinians exaggerate or completely
fabricate violence and injuries and portray Israelis as bloody,
dispassionate aggressors intent on maiming and killing Palestinian men,
women, youths and, wherever possible, children.

It needs to be mentioned here that the word "Pallywood" is here used in a racist way. If a Palestinian is lying then call him or her a liar. But why bring up their own nationality to insinuate that they are lying? It insinuates that Palestinians in general lie and that it is to be expected that they will lie. That is a nasty stereotype. And by singling out Palestinians in this way the word "Pallywood" is racist as well. Lying is a problem among people in general. It is wrong and racist to single out Palestinians in this manner.

What if one was to speak of American journalists in such a way? Or Israeli journalists? What if Nice spoke about any other ethnicity in such a way?

If one is lying there is no need to bring up the ethnicity of the alleged liar.

This article is racist.

***

Nice then asserts that Israelis could not have killed Mohammed al-Dura.

Several pieces of evidence indicate that the shooting of Mohammed
al-Dura itself was a theatrical production brought to you by Pallywood.
...

Last week, an independent ballistics expert corroborated earlier
investigations that found that the angle of the Israeli position and the
situation of the concrete obstacle made it impossible for Israeli
troops inside the outpost to have hit the al-Duras anywhere except in
their extremities, which were unharmed.

Nice names the investigator later but he fails to provide any other way for the reader to verify this assertion. Not even a single news article is cited to support Nice's assertion. The reader is asked to just trust Nice in this article.

***

Nice
then tries to link outrage over the death of Mohammed al-Dura with
Osama bin Laden and the terrorist attacks of 9/11. He brings up 9/11 in
order to inspire loathing, disgust and fear of Palestinians among his
readers.

But even Nice himself seems to somewhat
hesitate making this comparison. Perhaps even he can dimly sense
something wrong with making such an inflammatory association against Palestinians. If that is
the case he should listen to that pang of conscience.

While it’s true that Bin Laden probably didn’t abruptly conspire to
murder thousands of Americans simply upon seeing Enderlin’s report,
there’s no denying an indirect connection between that explosive log on
the fire and Bin Laden’s subsequent calculation that the Muslim world
was ready for September 11.

It’s hard to say such an impression would have been miscalculated.
As the World Trade Center appeared on television screens in Gaza,
Ramallah, Israel and the world, Palestinians filled the streets, old
women and young children cheering and smiling along with men and youths,
expressions of relief and delight on their faces.

It is indeed true that some Palestinians did react
in such a perverted way. But in fact most Palestinians were horrified
about 9/11 and condemned it as was noted in a previous post.

Meanwhile, the idea among U.S. viewers that the Palestinians - and Arabs
and Muslims in general - were celebrating the attacks belied the
reality that most Palestininans, like others in the region, were shocked
by the bombings and fearful of what they might bring. Arafat himself
issued a statement on September 11 condemning the attacks and declaring,
"It's not only against the American people and against America, it's
against the international humanity."

"How few cameras have caught the spontaneous sorrow, despair, tears and
heartache of the vast majority of Palestinian people," Rev. Sandra
Olewine, the Jerusalem liaison for the United Methodist Church, later
recalled. "My phone rang and rang as Palestinians from around the West
Bank called to express their horror and their condolences." The U.S.
consul general in Jerusalem received a 12-inch-thick stack of
condolences from Palestinians - which he ordered sent to CNN. (Lawrence
Pintak, Reflections in a Bloodshot Lens, 2006, p. 79.)

The fact that most Palestinians loathed and condemned Al Qaeda's terrorist attacks is ignored in Nice's article.

***

By focusing so much attention on one particular horrific death Nice obscures the fact that Palestinians endured about 300% more fatalities than Israelis. 3179-3354 Palestinians died during the second intifada (2000-5). Meanwhile during the same time 945-1010 Israelis died. This wider perspective of the situation is willfully ignored in Nice's article.

(Once in 2006 PCG's Ron Fraser mentioned that about 4000 people had died during the Second Intifada but he did not mention that about three quarters of those deaths were of Palestinians.)

This does not mean that Israelis' deaths are somehow "less" than those of Palestinians. One death regardless of religion or ethnicity is as terrible as any other. But what this fact does reveal is that during the Second Intifada Palestinians were as a matter of fact more vulnerable to being killed than Israelis. But this fact is ignored in Nice's article.

This indicates that during the course of the second intifada Palestinians were far more vulnerable to being killed than Israelis. While PCG is sympathetic towards Israeli Jews (because PCG thinks they are white) perhaps they should take a moment to consider that the Palestinians suffered more fatalities compared with Israelis.

The State of Israel has an advanced military. It imposes military conscription. It even has nuclear weapons. Meanwhile the Palestinians have far less. So it should be no surprise that Palestinians endured far more fatalities than Israelis.

This trend is also true in regards to the terrible wave of violence currently afflicting the Holy Land. Over 100 Palestinians have been killed since October 1 while about 23 Israelis have been killed so far. Once again Palestinians are as a matter of fact more vulnerable to being killed than Israelis.

But it is doubtful that those in the COGs have been informed of this situation.

***

Nice's article was promoted in another PCG article.

In further evidence of the massively successful propaganda campaign
Palestinians and their media supporters have waged against Israel, an
independent ballistics expert has corroborated earlier investigations
that found that the child martyr icon of the second intifada was not
killed by Israelis. Images of this supposed Israeli crime poisoned
international opinion toward Israel and inspired dozens of Palestinians
to commit murder. (The Week in Review, March
15, 2008.)

PCG teaches British Israelism and thus believe that Jews are white like themselves (PCG in America is predominantly white) while Palestinians are viewed as not white.

Many authoritarian religious groups teach their followers to view
matters in black and white. It is easier to manipulate people if one can
view the world in black and white terms. PCG has done this to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well.

Consequently the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is viewed by PCG in a simple way. One side is good. One side is bad. One side is white. The other is not white. One side is justified and thus inherently innocent. One side is not justified and therefore is always blamed.

***

Considering how dreadful this situation is at present it is good to call for peace. By advocating for peace one is supporting everyone's right to live in peace and safety. It is most unfortunate that many within the COGs are told that there can be no peace in the Holy Land until Christ returns. It is wrong that the hope for peace is destroyed in their hearts. We need peace now.

Thursday, November 26, 2015

Recently PCG wrote an article telling members to pay no attention to the effort by Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei towards minimizing the inflammatory slogan "Death to America" as just a protest against policies opposed by the Iranian government. Rather PCG insists that we should simply ignore Khamenei's words on this matter.

So PCG tells us that saying "Death to America" is hostile and wrong. It is good to condemn inflammatory rhetoric.

But what about saying Death to Australia? The late Ron Fraser once insinuated that Australia did not deserve to survive for electing a left wing government and (in his view) adopting policies that he disapproved of.

Back in 2008 PCG's Ron Fraser wrote a booklet about the land of his nativity, Australia. It is entitled Australia—Where to Now? (You can read this booklet on their website.) He appears to have been prompted to write this booklet following the election of a left wing Labour Party government in 2007.

In this booklet he complains that Australia is turning away from PCG's God and that some sort of catastrophe will befall Australia for it. At one point Fraser even insinuates that Australia does not deserve to survive (as was mentioned in a previous post).

In one particularly bizarre passage Fraser even insinuates that
Australia "does not deserve to survive" because of those he condemns
(Chapter 7, p. 43). ...

Fraser then bizarrely insinuates that an Australia that accommodates all
its' citizens, not just the white majority, "does not deserve to
survive."

It was Sir Winston Churchill who pointed to the truism that
any nation that forgets its past does not deserve to survive. (p. 43.)

What a shocking and terrible thing to say about Australia. What
bitterness lay in his heart, even towards his follow Australians. It is
shameful that Fraser should write such bitter words like this. I cannot
even imagine saying something so bitter, twisted, vindictive and nasty
about Australia.

So according to Ron Fraser a "nation [such as Australia] that forgets its past does not deserve to survive."

How is that not like saying Death to Australia?For more information about Ron Fraser's booklet, including his factually absurd attempt to deny that the Stolen Generations exist, please see Reading PCG's Booklet, Australia—Where to Now?

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

From an article by PCG encouraging PCG members to talk about their religion if the need arises.

[When] coming to America for college in 2010 [it] was such a strange phenomenon for
me [that religion was often discussed]. Every man and his dog there seem to freely discuss religion! It is a
point of pride for many Americans—and it is refreshing. ...

If I thought Americans were eager to talk about religion, wow, the
Israelis took it to a whole new level. It seemed that, when I went to
the Jerusalem excavation in 2012, the main topic of conversation between
us and the Jews—if not the only topic of conversation—was
religion. The diggers were keenly interested in our beliefs and wanted
to learn more about these Sabbath keepers who call themselves
Christians. So we really had to be on the ball to answer their
questions. These people were actually interested in my beliefs—not just questioning me in order to gossip to the next person. I had to be more ready than ever before to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you. (Christopher Eames, Ready to Answer, November 24, 2015.)

Is this a sign that PCG are trying to convert Israeli Jews? Based on what is said in the article that seems somewhat unlikely. But I certainly hope that is not happening since PCG has had enough problems among themselves and those associated with them already. The world does not need more problems to deal with.

It should be made known that most Israeli Jews happen to be Jewish. Judaism is not Armstrongism.

Shortly after Abu Bakr al Baghdadi's lackeys (ISIL) committed the ghastly terrorist attacks in Paris murdering 132 innocent people PCG released the following broadcast of The Trumpet Hour devoting most of it to discussing the terrorist attacks. ("Paris Attacks, Islam a Religion of Peace?, Battle of Tours and More," Trumpet Hour, November 18, 2015.)

We must take note that one reason ISIL committed the terrorist attacks
in Paris is to make us hate Muslims (as may be seen here and here).

We must be careful to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. When one say that "Islamic terrorists" committed the ghastly terrorist attacks in Paris such a person is effectively exonerating ISIL who committed the massacre. If "Islam" (stereotyped as a hostile and unified, political force) is to be blamed for the terrorist attacks then that is letting ISIL off the hook. It is exonerating those who committed the ghastly terrorist attacks. How can they be blamed if "Islam" is to be blamed? Oh, what folly anti-Muslim bigotry creates.

But utterly heedless of these implications Joel Hilliker proceeds to simplistically states that "Islamic terrorists" committed the terrorist attacks in Paris, obscuring the fact that a terrorist cell controlled by ISIL committed the ghastly massacre.

The Islamic State is taking responsibility. These were Islamic terrorist attacks. (Joel Hilliker, 30-50 seconds.)

We must be careful to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. Calling a terrorist attack committed by ISIL as "Islamic terrorist attacks" as though Muslims collectively are guilty of the terrorist attack is guilt by association. It is wrong to accuse innocent Muslims of being somehow guilty by association of what ISIL did. Such guilt by association actually exonerates the guilty ones, namely the ISIL terrorists, and relieves them of responsibility of what they did.

***

Those who stand up against anti-Muslim bigotry are referred to in a negative way as "apologists" and as defenders of multiculturalism. When in fact there are simply some people who wish to hold the guilty responsible and to make sure that innocent Muslims are not tarred with ISIL's terrorist crimes.

If one pays close attention to what is said in this broadcast it will be clear that they fail to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent.

***

There is segment in which Joel Hilliker and Jeremiah Jacques talk with each other. During this interview Hilliker made the following statement. Note how he inaccurately portrays Islam as a singular, unified, political force. He talks as though Islam is some sort of imperialist empire when in fact the Muslims are divided into numerous nation states and even within these nation states there are numerous differing political groups. All these differences are willfully ignored.

It's a religion with bloody borders because they do have this us against them mentality and it is a kind of imperialistic way of thinking that results in conflicts like we've seen throughout history and like what we saw in Paris last week. (Joel Hilliker, 24 minutes.)

Ironically PCG constantly vilifies Muslims and constantly portrays them in the worst light.

***

Jeremiah Jacques talks about "Islamic peoples." (26 minutes.)

Islam is a religion, not a race. For PCG it is all about race. Muslims are stereotyped as being not "like us." Even though they are vilifying a religion because they view Muslims as a unified, political force they cannot help but assume "they" are of a different race. It is PCG that insists on racializing this issue.

***

It is insinuated that those Muslims who disagree with terrorist extremists like ISIL are not real Muslims. (Joel Hilliker, 29 minutes.)

Because they insist on stereotyping Muslims collectively as terrorists it is necessary to somehow denigrate all Muslims who do not fit this stereotype as somehow not being "true Muslims" (as defined by PCG).

Bizarrely this means that PCG have assumed for themselves the authority to judge who is a "true Muslim" and who is a "false Muslim" and furthermore PCG wants us to believe that that the "true Muslims" (as defined by PCG) are the ISIL terrorists.

Oh, what folly anti-Muslim bigotry produces.

***

Brad MacDonald talks of "Armies of Islam." (MacDonald, 31-32 minutes.) Once again they are simplistically portraying "Islam" as a single, unified, political force. The many differences and political and national divisions among Muslims are ignored.

***

It [Islam] is an imperialist entity. (Joel Hilliker, 35 minutes.)

Again PCG's leaders insist on viewing Muslims as a unified, political force. As though they act as one. This is a straw man of Islam. A narrow stereotype. There is widespread variety of Muslims.

***

MacDonald denies being anti-Islam by mentioning other religions they do not like. (36 minutes.)

That does not change the fact that PCG's leaders are failing to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent among Muslims. It is wrong to collectively accuse Muslims as a whole of conspiring against the West. This is just a stereotype that ignores the vast political and national diversity among Muslims.

***

Paranoid insistence that knowledge of the Battle of Tours is being suppressed by multiculturalists. (37 minutes.)

It is not. This is just an attempt to create an artificial sense of grievance by people PCG disagree with.

***

MacDonald talks about "native French". (43-44 minutes.)

He refers to whites. For PCG this denigration of Muslims collectively is about race.

MacDonald refuses to treat those who are not white as equals with himself. The reason Muslims supposedly cannot integrate is partly because of people who refuse to treat them as equals.

Monday, November 23, 2015

In 1994 Gerald Flurry dogmatically proclaimed that Iran would be the King of the South. Since then PCG has constantly vilified and demonized Iran in order to convince people that it is a sign that Gerald Flurry is a Prophet able to foresee the future. Iran is constantly portrayed in the worst possible light often with the insinuation that Iran will inflict some sort of catastrophe upon the United States before Christ returns.

But reality has been getting in the way of PCG's dogmatic proclamation.

President Ahmadinejad walked out of power in 2013 and his preferred successor was not elected. Recently President Obama made an international agreement with Iran to monitor their nuclear program. It became more widely known that back in 2003 Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei had made a fatwa condemning the possession of nuclear weapons as un-Islamic thus banning Iran from making nuclear weapons.

And now Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei has minimized the slogan "Death to America" by saying it is merely a protest against U.S. policies the Iranian government does not like and not an incitement for the mass murder of Americans. This contradicts PCG's negative portrayal of Iran so the PCG leadership is telling their readers to pay no attention to what Khamenei has just said in a recent article by Callum Wood.

According to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, “Death to
America” isn’t quite as bad as it sounds. In the lead-up to the
Wednesday anniversary of the destruction of the United States embassy in
Tehran, Khamenei has taken to his website to clarify the meaning of the
slogan.

“It goes without saying,” Khamenei stated, “that the slogan does not
mean death to the American nation; this slogan means death to the U.S.
policies, death to arrogance.”

The PCG leadership seem afraid that PCG members might just believe Khamenei. Wood proceeds to insist that Khamenei is just lying.

Can we believe that? The truth is that the ayatollah’s statements are just a flimsy
facade to keep Iran’s “moderate” charade from being exposed. There is
evidence aplenty to suggest that the words “death to America” actually
mean death to America.

Wood proceeds to insist that Iranians have hated the United States for a long time.

Its hatred for America predates even the 1979 revolution that toppled
the shah of Iran. In 1953, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh was
battling Britain for control of Iran’s oil assets. Alongside the CIA,
British intelligence allegedly orchestrated a coup, reinstating Shah
Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as Iran’s ruler. Fueled by Iranian hard-liners
like Ruhollah Khomeini, Iranians began to see the shah as a mere puppet
of the meddling United States.

It is absurd for this article to insinuate that it is not true that British and American agents helped overthrow Mosaddegh. British and American agents indeed helped to orchestrate the coup against the democratically elected Mosaddegh. This fact is well known to anyone who cares to research the subject. That is what happened in Iran in 1953.

Iran uses a policy of anti-Americanism to strengthen its overall
effectiveness in the region. By enacting “death to America” policies, it
establishes itself as a legitimate opponent to the influence of the
United States in the Middle East. Many Muslims do not trust the U.S. and
look for a viable power to replace it. By propagating anti-West,
anti-American sentiment, Iran is working to establish itself as that
replacement.

The “Death to America” policy does not center on merely reversing
American policy; it calls for the destruction of America and all it
represents. If Iran really was interested in the death of American
“policy and arrogance,” neither its pursuit of nuclear arms nor its
support of terrorism would be necessary.

So now Wood has redefined “Death to America” as a policy instead of a slogan. This is a sudden change of topic.

Wood then insists that it does not matter what the Iranian people think. The Iranian leadership are extremists and really scary. The PCG leadership want readers to be afraid and fearful of Iran.

But they miss the point. Those with the ability to switch on the
centrifuges and launch a missile—the policymakers and religious
leaders—are the ones who believe in the slogan! Those are the people to
worry about. The media should fear a handful of Iran’s political and
religious zealots chanting “Death to America” far more than it should
fear a crowd of Iranian youths who may be pressured into chanting it.

So now Wood wants us to just ignore a bunch of Iranian juveniles shouting “Death to America”?

What's really going on is that this article is trying to keep readers convinced that PCG's continuous demonization of Iran since 1994 is fully justified. The PCG leadership will even not let Iran's Supreme Leader contradict their portrayal of the world.

Surprisingly enough among the comments PCG has allowed to be posted the following comment criticizing Wood's article.

I’m sorry Mr. Wood, but I stopped reading after the first few
paragraphs. I suggest you get yourself a visa and go to Iran like so
many Americans do every year. You’ll be pleasantly surprised when you
aren’t beheaded on arrival, and possibly floored by how you’re greeted
with delight by virtually every ordinary Iranian when they find out
you’re from the States. If you don’t believe me, check out a few
travelogs by American citizens who have been there instead of watching
Argo and 300 reruns.

Really getting sick of uninformed commentary at best, and blatant
propaganda at worst, by people who have never been to Iran or have the
faintest idea what Iranians really think behind the noise of the shills
from both that regime and your own.

As an aside, there’s nothing “alleged” about the coup in ‘53, even the
CIA has admitted it. Please at least get one or two facts straight
before wasting people’s time.

It just seems as though PCG is lacking the enthusiasm to vilify Iran like they used to. Perhaps they might change the identity of the King of the South soon.

It must be stated that these are real problems. But on the other hand going to University is a way for people to advance themselves in order to make a productive life for themselves for the betterment of their families. If one can gain admittance into a University to get a good qualification then he or she should go for it.

But what is Leap's real message? Why is he saying these things?

Leap ends his article with the following words.

Something is missing in our education system. You can see it in the
materialistic emphasis. You can see it in the prevalence of drug use and
the epidemic of rape. The missing dimension is instruction in
character—how to live the right way: morally, cleanly, at peace
with others. This is the greatest danger on college and university
campuses. Our lofty educational institutions fail to teach our young
people about God and the productive, successful life that can only be
gained by living by His Ten Commandments. These eternal laws teach young
people how to make right choices in life ....

There is a way you can protect your college-age student from the
dangers of campus life. Provide him with right education. Please request
a free to you copy of our booklet Education With Vision. It is one of the best sources you can read to help your child attain life-building academic success.

Having read that booklet for myself I feel quite justified in saying that it is advertising for PCG's own College, Herbert W. Armstrong College.

This article is the PCG leadership's attempt to discredit the competition in the hope that some readers (the parents) will decide to go to Herbert W. Armstrong College.

One reader made the following comment:

It’s such a blessing to have peace of mind to know when you send your
children to HWAC, that you know they are in the most wonderful
environment in the world and are getting the best education ever!

Back when I believed that LCG was the true church on Earth I read an article by Roderick C. Meredith in which he condemned the Roman Catholic Church as being the Harlot of Revelation 17. In that article Meredith quoted an author named Dave Hunt in this article condemning the Catholic Church. I learned that Hunt was a Protestant minister. I read the book Meredith cited as mentioned in a previous post.

Years later I found another book by Hunt in the library and read it. I read it half heartedly. Since I believed that God was with LCG and not Dave Hunt I did not take so seriously. Any time he said something contrary to LCG's teachings I casually ignored it.

Let us now take a look at Dave Hunt's 2006 book, Judgment Day!: Islam, Israel and the Nations. Reading it now I saw that there are issues about this book that were not apparent to me when I first read it back when I was a believer in Armstrongism.

Disclaimer Regarding Prophetic Teachings

It is not the purpose of this post to critique what Hunt says is to occur in the future. Rather this post is to focus on what Hunt says about events past and present, not so much about future events.

Since Hunt never taught Armstrongism (and in fact taught against it as will be noted later) it is not the purpose of this post to convince anyone that the teachings of this book concerning the future are either right or wrong. But if such a teaching might have a negative effect today that will have to be mentioned. But discussions concerning events past and present will be discussed and assessed in this post.

Let us see what Hunt has to say.

No Ten Lost Tribes

Hunt,
quite correctly, notes that there never were any "ten lost tribes."
Rather those Israelites who were exiled by the Assyrians maintained
their cultural identity and many later came back to the Holy Land
gradually assimilating themselves with those associated with the
southern kingdom of Judea. The previous unhappy division was healed and
they became once again one people. This inspiring memory of what
happened after Assyria's conquest of Israel is destroyed by British
Israelism. (pp. 48-49.)

Who are Arabs?

This may seem like a strange question to ask but Hunt has a rather peculiar definition of what is an Arab.

Although there are Arabs living in all of the Middle Eastern countries, and they are collectively referred to as "the Arab world," these neighboring nations that seek Israel's destruction are not primarily of Arab descent. The Lebanese, Syrians, and Iranians are not Arabs, nor are the Iraqis, Egyptians, Libyans, Moroccans, Tunisians, Algerians, et al. Only the Saudis are Arabs. (pp. 15-16.)

Hunt is correct about the Iranians not being Arab. But as for the other countries it should be stated that the majority populations of those countries speak the Arabic language. How can they not be Arabs? They are Arabs. It is true that there are ethnic minorities such as the Berbers in Northern Africa but those nations are Arab nations. It is incorrect to insist that only the Saudis are Arabs.

Reliance on WorldNetDaily

In
this book Hunt quotes WorldNetDaily ten times (pp. 23, 77, 91, 133,
150-1, 151, 154, 177, 197, 254). Another quote from WorldNetDaily's editor is on page 19 however Hunt cites another source in that instance. In all those ten quotes no doubt or
skepticism is ever presented about WorldNetDaily itself. It would seem
that Hunt trusts WorldNetDaily.

Although it is worth mentioning that Hunt's organization called out an editor of WorldNetDaily for teaching doctrines similar to Armstrongism as was reported at Banned by HWA back in 2012.

Mythical Nukes in America

On page 19 it is asserted that Al Qaeda have nukes in America. Bear in mind the following words were published back in 2006.

[One writer] has been reporting for some time that Al Qaeda has nukes inside the United States. [Another man,] a former FBI consultant, says there is no question but that Al Qaeda has already smuggled dozens of fully assembled nuclear weapons into the United States. (p. 19.)

It is now nine years since those words were published. Clearly they were wrong.

Reliance on the Islamophobia Network

In 2011 the Center for American Progress released a report detailing various right wing foundations, persons and organizations dedicated to vilifying Muslims. The report called these persons and organizations as "the Islamophobia Network." They made a website (islamophobianetwork.com) detailing the connections of this network of persons and organizations.

The website lists five "misinformation experts" propping up this network, namely Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, David Yerushalmi, Frank Gaffney, Robert Spencer and Steve Emerson. Hunt's book cites sources related to four of these men, namely Pipes, Emerson and (somewhat more distantly) Horowitz and Spencer. Another connection between Hunt's book and the Islamophobia Network is Walid Shoebat.

On pages 14 and 188 Hunt cites a 1994 documentary by one Steve Emerson.
Emerson has a long career of vilifying Muslims. Infamously in 1995
following the Oklahoma City bombing Emerson blamed it on Muslims. Emerson was cited by the Center for American Progress as one of the main misinformers of the
Islamophobia Network.

On page 146 Hunt mentions the tragic mass murder of a family of four by
(Hunt alleges) a Muslim. According to footnote 2 on page 179 this
particular information is cited from Jihad Watch, a web site operated by
Robert Spencer. Spencer was trained in Catholic history. He is not academically trained in learning about Muslim history. Spencer has been
identified as one of the main misinformers of the Islamophobia Network.

On page 147 Hunt cites one Walid Shoebat.

Former
PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat, whose life was transformed by faith in
Jesus Christ and who is now dedicated to exposing the truth about
Islam... (p. 147.)

Hunt fails to mention that there
is widespread skepticism about Shoebat's claim to have been a terrorist
for the PLO. The reader of Hunt's book is left ignorant of the controversy surrounding
Shoebat.

Appendix B is an article sourced from Front Page Magazine, a right
wing media outlet founded by David Horowitz (pp. 383-7). The article
also cites Richard Pipes and denounces CAIR. Both Richard Pipes and
David Horowitz have been identified as two of the main misinformers
sustaining the Islamophobia Network by the Center for American Progress (as may be seen here and here).

Hunt has to a lot say about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but he says
very little about Palestinian Christians. Although the vast majority of
Palestinians happen to be Sunni Muslim many Palestinians are
Christians. They are rarely mentioned in Hunt's book.

Instead Palestinians are simplistically stereotyped as Muslims thus averting the readers' attention away from what these Palestinian Christians have to say about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

At another point Hunt even calls From Time Immemorial a "monumental book" (p. 106).

However Hunt never gives the reader any indication that it is widely viewed as untrustworthy and discredited. Norman Finkelstein in his book, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, condemned that book as a fraud with plagiarized passages.

Its reputation is so bad even Israelis will not use this book to support themselves. This may be seen in the following New York Times article.

Yehoshua Porath, an Israeli historian of the
Palestinian Arabs who teaches at Hebrew University, was asked in a
telephone interview from Jerusalem about the book. ''I think it's a
sheer forgery,'' he replied.

''In Israel, at least, the book was almost
universally dismissed as sheer rubbish except maybe as a propaganda
weapon,'' the historian said. Mr. Porath described his politics as
centrist. He has written an essay on the book for The New York Review of
Books that will be published soon. (Colin Campbell, "Dispute Flares over Book on Claims to Palestine", New York Times, May 28, 1985.)

So the book, according to this Israeli historian is "sheer rubbish" and yet twenty years later Dave Hunt should dare to present this book as evidence that the Palestinians' nationality is a "hoax." (Hunt, pp. 55-56.) Hunt says nothing about how disreputable Peters' book is. A reader would have no way of knowing how fatally flawed From Time Immemorial is.

There is reason to believe that Hunt was well aware of the controversy surrounding From Time Immemorial. The evidence is that Hunt refers to Norman Finkelstein's book Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Hunt has clearly read it. In the footnotes on page 281 Hunt cites quotations to pages 10 and 14 of Finkelstein's book. Finkelstein's book is mentioned on page 411 in the bibliography.

How could Hunt fail to notice that Finkelstein had scathingly condemned From Time Immemorial in an entire chapter of that book? But Hunt never mentions any of this. He gives no hint or indication that Finkelstein talked about From Time Immemorial. And Hunt certainly failed to respond to any of the serious criticisms Finkelstein had for From Time Immemorial.

Hunt should have argued with Finkelstein to prove him wrong and to prove that Finkelstein's condemnation of From Time Immemorial is wrong. Instead Hunt accuses Finkelstein of being inspired by Satan.

He [Finkelstein] argues that the very existence of a "historical homeland of the Jewish people" would render "the Jewish people 'alien' to every other state/territorial unit, thus sanctioning the claims of anti-Semitism." ... He [Finkelstein] doesn't recognize that his anti-Israel position is inspired of another being in whom he doesn't believe--Satan. (p. 278.)

How is accusing an American Jewish academic of being inspired by Satan not anti-Semitic?

Admittedly Hunt tries to dull the severity of this accusation by then insisting that other people he disagrees with are also inspired by Satan.

I cannot help but wonder if the real reason Hunt treats Finkelstein in sich a way is because of Finkelstein's discrediting of From Time Immemorial. Is it possible that Hunt read Finkelstein and was furious that he should dare condemn a book Hunt seems to have liked?

The reader would have no idea that Peters' book was so utterly discredited or that Finkelstein ever talked about From Time Immemorial.

Alleged Palestinian-British Alliance

One
thing that Hunt seems to find attractive with Peters' book is Peters'
assertion that Britain sided with the Palestinians against those who
would establish the State of Israel during the British mandatory period
(1917-48). Hunt's use of From Time Immemorial to assert that there existed a British alliance with the Palestinians during the Mandatory period may be seen in the quotes on page 95.

Speaking in Cairo, Iraqi foreign minister, Fadel al-Jamali, declared: " ... Britain is a real friend of the Arabs." It was a friendship Britain carefully cultivated for selfish reasons at the expense of the Jews. (p. 95.)

The quote cited as being from Peters' book. This is no mention of when the Iraqi Foreign Minister made this statement in Hunt's book.

But this assertion of a Palestinian-British alliance ignores many facts regarding Britain's
rule in Palestine.

On December 10, 1918, soldiers from a New Zealand division went into the village of Surafind and massacred about 40 Palestinians in retaliation for the death of a soldier. General Allenby was furious about this terrible massacre and denounced those responsible as "cowards and murderers".

Furthermore, under British rule, the British authorities favored the Jewish community in Mandatory Palestine by granting favorable economic concessions to them.

[There was] preferential economic treatment granted by the mandatory government to the Jewish community. It enjoyed concessions that the Palestinians could only have dreamed of. The British government encouraged the heads of the Zionist project to be self-sufficient economically and entrusted to them the natural resources of the land. In this way, the Zionist economy was segregated from the Palestinian one, as was the land and labour market, and a Jewish economic enclave was created. (Ilan Pappé, in Israel and South Africa, Chapter 2.)

During the Great Arab Revolt of
1936-9 it was the Palestinians who endured the highest fatality rate.
The British authorities focused the most of their repression upon the
Palestinians instead of the Jews who lived there.

Despite the intervention of up to 50,000 British troops and 15,000
Haganah men, the uprising continued for over three years. By the time it
concluded in September 1939, more than 5,000 Arabs, over 300 Jews, and
262 Britons had been killed and at least 15,000 Arabs were wounded. (1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine, Wikipedia.)

In other words the number of Palestinian fatalities in the revolt was about 1700% higher than the fatalities of Jews in Mandatory Palestine at the same time.

One would never know of such things reading Hunt's book.

Hunt even asserts (without supplying even one footnote to establish this inflammatory allegation) that the members of the PLO today work for the British.

Today, many PLO agents continue working for the British secret service. (p. 127.)

Hunt fails to provide even one footnote to substantiate this inflammatory accusation.

I advice much caution regarding this assertion.

Palestinians? What Palestinians?

Hunt claims that the Palestinians' own nationality is "an outright hoax."

There are those today who call themselves "Palestinians" and claim that they descended from a Palestinian people who lived for thousands of years in a land called Palestine. In fact, that claim is an outright hoax. Yet the world accepts this lie as the basis of a false peace that they have been attempting for years to force upon Israel. (pp. 55-56.)

Nonsense. The Palestinian people are as real as any other people.

It is an insult to the God of Israel and to His chosen people to call the promised of Israel "Palestine"! (p. 67.)

That whole territory was all called Palestine until 1948. The naval ensign of Mandatory Palestine had the word "Palestine" written on that flag.

Naval Ensign of Mandatory Palestine (1927-48)

Is that flag insulting God and Jews? What nonsense.

British ruled Mandatory Palestine issued passports with the name Palestine on it. They were given to Palestinians and Jews alike.

Were those who had these passports (Palestinian, Jew, etc.) insulting God and Jews?

One of Israel's most prominent newspapers, The Jerusalem Post, was originally named The Palestine Post. Were the people who worked for The Palestine Post insulting God and Jews?

It is absurd to claim it is somehow blasphemous to call that land Palestine, especially considering that the land was named Palestine until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.

The "Palestinians" claim that all of the land belongs to them and that Israel is therefore occupying their land and must be removed. This defiance of God cannot continue without His righteous judgment falling upon the perpetrators! (p. 71.)

The secular world can justify its attitude
because "Christians" say that those Jews in Israel are there illegally,
and they're not God's chosen people after all, for that honor belongs to
the church. (pp. 302-303.)

These statements obscures the fact that no nation on Earth recognizes Israel as sovereign over the territories acquired after the Six Day War of 1967. (Except the State of Israel. And even then Israel only annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, not the Gaza Strip, the West Bank or the Sinai Peninsula).

It is illegal in international law for a state to acquire territory by force. The international community concluded that the territories acquired after by the State of Israel after the Six Day War (Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights from Syria, the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, East Jerusalem) were acquired by armed force and therefore no state on Earth recognizes the State of Israel as having any right to rule those territories. Consequently the international community (every nation state on Earth except the State of Israel) does not recognize those territories as belonging to the State of Israel but rather as territory occupied by the State of Israel.

Currently 160 UN member states recognize the State of Israel. All of them only recognize Israel's right to rule the land it had before the Six Day War. The rest of that territory is regarded by those 160 UN member states as occupied land that does not belong to Israel. Hunt never explains this fact.

Now there are many laws to govern how a state may govern occupied territory. One of these laws is that it is illegal for an occupying power to transfer members of its population into occupied territory. Consequently it is illegal under international law for the State of Israel to let Israeli citizens to settle in the occupied territories of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and even East Jerusalem. This is the view of all 160 UN member states that recognize the State of Israel including the United States. Thus when Palestinians call for the settlers to leave the West Bank and East Jerusalem in one sense those Palestinians are merely calling for Israel to obey international law just like everyone else. (More on this matter may be seen in Beyond Occupation (2011).)

Incidentally this is the same reason why the international community in general does not grant diplomatic recognition to Northern Cyprus (except Turkey), Morocco's control over Western Sahara, North Somalia's de facto independence from Somalia, Transnistria's de facto independence from Moldova, Nagorno-Karabakh's de facto independence from Azerbaijan, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia's de facto independence from Georgia. Nation states tend to be quite reluctant to recognize the changing of borders unless they are mutually agreed by those concerned. This same rule applies to the territories acquired by the State of Israel in 1967. Nation states do not want to give any other nation state a precedent to alter borders by military force.

Part of the appeal of the two state solution is that it would allow Israel to withdraw from occupied territory which no nation on Earth recognizes as rightfully belonging to Israel. The international community already recognizes the land controlled by the State of Israel in its internationally recognized territory, namely the 1949-1967 border, as opposed to territories acquired after the Six Day War which is regarded as occupied territory by every government on Earth except the State of Israel.

We now continue with Hunt's book.

They claim to be the children and grandchildren of Palestinians who were descended from the "original Palestinians" and who were alledgedly driven from their homes, businesses, and farms by the Israelis in the 1948 War of Independence. Backed by world opinion, the United Nations, the EU, and most world leaders, they demand a return to their native "Palestine." (pp. 75-76.)

It is a fact that about 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from
Palestine during the Israeli War of Independence. Estimates of how many Palestinians fled Israel vary between 530,000
according to some Israeli authors to as high as over 935,573 according
to UNRWA.

Statistics for refugee figures have been as high as 935,573 according to UNRWA registrations, to as low as 530,000 according to some Israeli sources. The British Foreign Office estimated the total number of refugees to be 810,000 in February 1949 and then issued a revised estimate of 600,000. The UNCCP Technical Office gave a figure of 760,000. The US government estimated a total refugee population of 875,000 as of 1953. [It states elsewhere that the consensus figure is now about 750,000.] (Beyond Occupation, 2011, p. 292.)

The presence of these
refugees was imposed upon the surrounding Arab nations such as Lebanon,
Syria, Jordan, Jordan occupied West Bank and the Egyptian administrated
Gaza Strip. Naturally those expelled Palestinians tried to return home
but the State of Israel, with few exceptions, denied them permission to
return. The surrounding Arab states did not ask for these Palestinian
refugees to be among them so they were not integrated into society. The surrounding Arab states also demanded that the State of Israel let the refugees return. The State of Israel has not done so to this day.

Vilifying Palestinians and Arabs

Although the "Palestinians" pretend to be interested in negotiations brokered by Western powers to make "peace" in exchange for Israel giving up additional land, their ultimate aim is to possess all of Israel. (p. 79.)

These words show that Hunt has no interest in peace between Israelis and Palestinians since he confidently insists that the Palestinians are lying.

The "Palestinians" are mere pawns of the Arabs. (p. 80.)

Not only is the Palestinians' nationality denied but their own agency to effect matters for better or worse is denied. Instead they are vilified as "pawns of the Arabs" so that the reader will think that any act the State of Israel commits against the Palestinians is actually against the surrounding Arab nations. It is often not the case.

When the revolt was finally crushed in A.D. 135, the Roman conquerors angrily renamed the land of Israel, Provincia Syria-Palestina, after Israel's ancient enemies, the Philistines. From that time forward, all those living there were known as "Palestinians." (p. 82.)

Sounds like Hunt is saying the Palestinian people has existed since A.D. 135 here even though he insists elsewhere that there is no Palestinian nation or any Palestinian people in existence.

There is no reasoning with terrorists. Force is all they understand. Without question, the premier terrorist of recent years was Yasser Arafat, not Osama bin Laden. (p. 87.)

In this book Hunt seemed to me particularly fixated upon Yasser Arafat as the most terrible terrorist despite the rise of Hamas as a major rival to Arafat's Fatah and the emergence of Al Qaeda terrorists. It should be noted that Hunt held to this view even in the aftermath of 9/11 and in spite of the terrorist acts Hamas has committed over the years.

Arafat ran ... the territories the PLO has been given by Israel like the Royal family runs Saudi Arabia. There is no freedom. ... Voting is a joke. (p. 88.)

In 2006 (apparently shortly after the printing of this book) elections were held among the Palestinians and Fatah lost power to Hamas. Power was then transferred to Hamas. Now it must be stated that relations between Fatah and Hamas soon deteriorated into a brief civil war in 2007 but it cannot be denied that the votes of the 2006 elections in fact effected a transfer of power. We can argue that it was a bad choice but it was a choice which was ever so briefly honored among the Palestinians. Voting in Palestine in 2006 was no joke.

Britain, in exercising its mandate, had given the Arabs many independent states, from Egypt (1922) to Saudi Arabia (1931) to Transjordan (1946). (p. 94.)

How paternalistic these words are. The agency of the Arabs in making their own decisions is denied and erased with these words. The people of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Transjordan liberated themselves by making it clear to the British authorities that they wanted to be independent just like Britain herself.

Considering that Hunt lives in a nation that liberated herself from British rule after a War of Independence it is ironic that Hunt seems to not notice that the peoples of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan would share the same longing for independence.

Indeed, the entire Arab world had sided with the Nazis against the Allies, while Jewish volunteers had fought in the British army... (p. 95.)

Nonsense. Britain was in control of Egypt and Mandatory Palestine during World War II. Yemen, Oman, what is now the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain were firmly aligned with Britain during the whole course of World War II. In Iraq there was indeed a brief revolt against the British that was partly incited by the Nazis and accompanied by deadly anti-Semitic pogroms against innocent Iraqi Jews. This revolt was eventually suppressed. So this assertion that "the entire Arab world had sided with the Nazis against the Allies" is simply not true.

On pages 100-101 Hunt says that after the Israeli War of Independence the State of Israel wanted the Palestinian inhabitants within its territory to remain and build the State of Israel together. But in actual fact many of those 750,000 Palestinians who had been expelled and/or fled for their lives, often having nothing but what they could carry, wanted to return to their homes after the war. Many of these Palestinians were Christians. The vast majority were refused permission to return. The State of Israel blocked those Palestinians' ability to return. The State of Israel continues to do so to this very day.

In contrast, no Jew has such rights in any Arab or Muslim country. In fact, a Jew isn't allowed to set foot in Saudi Arabia. Contrary to the claims that put the blame on Israel, the truth is that it was the Arab military command that told the Arabs to get out. (p. 101.)

Not true. This is much evidence to suggest that did not happen. Norman Finkelstein in his book, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, presented evidence in Chapter 3 that actually the Arab leaders wanted the Palestinians to remain where they were during the Israeli War of Independence.

However Palestinian society had been severely weakened following the harsh repression that occurred in the Great Arab Revolt of 1936-9. During the course of the 1947-9 war Palestinian society collapsed and vast numbers of Palestinians, (about 750,000) fled in fear and panic regardless of their leaders' commands to stay at their homes.

The fact that Finkelstein wrote of this in contradiction to Hunt's portrayal of events is never mentioned in Hunt's book.

Afterwards Hunt talks of Jews who fled to the State of Israel following Israel's founding. On page 56 Hunt says that there were 856,000 Jewish refugees from the Middle East who fled to Israel. Hunt says that is more Jews than the Palestinians who fled Israel. But in fact the numbers are fairly similar. Estimates of how many Palestinians fled Israel vary between 530,000 according to some Israeli authors to as high as over 935,573 according to UNRWA. The consensus figure is now 750,000. So that figure is not quite so large a difference as Hunt makes it out to be.

Thousands of Arab refugees did return to their homes and businesses in Israel. (p.115.)

Hunt was talking of not just any Arab refugees, but of Palestinian refugees. This may be well be true for some. But the vast majority of those Palestinian refugees who fled in 1947-9 were forbidden by the State of Israel to return to their homes. This condemned them to a condition of statelessness.

The surrounding Arab states saw no reason why they should have to bear the burden of absorbing these refugees that the Arab states had not asked for so the Palestinians were never integrated into those nations. Both the Palestinians and the Arab states called for the Palestinians to return to where they lived before the 1947-9 war. The State of Israel to this day has not allowed the vast majority of those Palestinian refugees to return.

One memorable account of how these Palestinians were expelled by those who created the State of Israel may be found in the 1949 Israeli novella Khirbet Khirzeh by S. Yizhar. This novella, originally written in Hebrew, well describes what happened in those days. Hunt's denigration of the Palestinians serves to obscure what happened during the Israeli War of Independence (1947-9).

Redefining the Term: Islam

Hunt has redefined the word "Islam" in this book and has changed its meaning. Normally Islam refers to the religion of Muslims. By this I mean any and all Muslims, whether Sunni, Shia or whatever other variety there may be. There is a wide range of diversity of attitudes and opinions regarding many things among the Muslims themselves.

But Hunt has in this book redefined "Islam" to refer to a specific type of what he regards as being "true Islam". Any other form of Islam is denigrated by Hunt as not a true version of Islam. Hunt as given himself the authority to define what is Islam and what is not Islam among the Muslims.

The fundamental problem of Islamophobia is to assume that
Muslims are united in beliefs and actions. It is true that there are over a billion Muslims.
But are they united politically? Can these one billion Muslims act together on anything?

Muslims are divided into many nation
states. These nation states contend and strive with each other as other nation states do. And even within these nation states there are innumerable
differences and political factions. So how can one talk of "Islam" doing
this or that as though all Muslims are united in belief and action when they are not?

But Hunt has fallen into this error. In this book he constantly talks of Islam as though it is one thing that acts coherently. "Islam" is written of as though it had the will of one man. Consequently the nuances to be found among Muslims are ignored or minimized by Hunt in order to insist that Muslims collectively act as a hostile and unified political force.

***

On page 135 Hunt complains:

... the U.S. Postal Service issued a 34-cent Eid stamp at the annual Islamic Society of North America's convention in Des Plaines, Illinois. Such gestures of goodwill and appeasement only encourage Muslims in their determined conquest of the world... (p. 135.)

These words shows how Hunt assumes that Muslims will act in a certain hostile manner to even such a friendly gesture such as producing a commemorative stamp.

***

Did Bush really imagine that his sincere gesture of goodwill would be accepted by Muslims around the world and make them more kindly disposed toward us? (p. 136.)

Should President Bush have not even tried to gain goodwill from Muslim communities? This once again shows how Hunt assumes that Muslims will act in such a hostile manner.

***

In Chapter 7 (pp. 145-180) Muslims are simplistically
stereotyped as terrorists. Appointing Muslims to positions of authority
or offering words of friendship and respect are absurdly denigrated as
somehow "rewarding" or "appeasing" Muslims. But we must be careful to
distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. 9/11 was a criminal
conspiracy. We can not blame Muslims who had nothing to do with 9/11 as
though it is their fault.

Hunt mentions that Kahane was a member of the Knesset and a rabbi. These facts are true. But Hunt fails to mention that Kahane was an extremist. Kahane's political party was so extreme that the Israeli authorities banned it. The infamous Baruch Goldstein, the mass murderer of Hebron, was a follower of Kahane. Kahane's name is not even mentioned in the index. While his violent death is to be regretted like any act of violence let us not blind ourselves to facts the way Hunt seems to do so here. The reader is left ignorant of Kahane's baneful influence upon Israeli society.

***

On page 152 Hunt insists that the strict way of life in Saudi Arabia is a representation of true Islam. But in actual fact many Muslim majority nations behave quite differently to Saudi Arabia. For instance Saudi Arabia banned women from driving cars. No other Muslim nation on Earth follow this terrible discriminatory practice. It is neither fair nor accurate to present Saudi Arabia as an example of (Hunt's narrowly defined) "true Islam" in practice when every other Muslim majority nation differ on this discriminatory practice.

***

It is considered honorable for a Muslim to lie to non-Muslims in order to promote or defend his faith. (p. 154.)

This allegation has often made against Muslims in general by various demagogues characterized as Islamophobic.

***

Hunt condemns CAIR on page 173. A negative fixation on CAIR is quite frequently found in the writings of those generally deemed Islamophobic.

***

After that chapter Hunt complains about criticism of the State of Israel's practice of demolishing houses as punishment.

Repeatedly Israel has been taken to task for "overreacting" to suicide bombing, for pursuing terrorists into PA territory, and for destroying the houses from which terrorists have operated. (p. 185.)

Hunt makes it appear as though criticism of house demolitions are merely a criticism of over reaction. What Hunt fails to mention is that house demolitions are widely condemned and judged to be illegal according to international law as it is defined as constituting collective punishment that penalizes those who presumably had nothing to do with any act of violence.

***

On page 185 Hunt complains that the State of Israel is being unfairly criticized for building the wall. It is not mentioned that the International Court of Justice ruled that the wall was illegal according to international law in 2004.

The State of Israel's decision to ignore this ruling contributed to Palestinians issuing a call for people to boycott, divest and sanction the State of Israel on the one year anniversary of the International Court of Justice's legal ruling in 2005. That occurred as a direct result of the wall's construction. Had the State of Israel adhered to that ruling perhaps that call for boycott would have been avoided and the State of Israel could have saved themselves from that protest campaign.

***

On page 185 Hunt mentions a belligerent statement from a PLO official. But only when you look at the footnote (p. 213, footnote 8) it is mentioned that the words cited date from the 1970s. The possibility that things may have changed since the 1970s does not appear to occur to Hunt.

***

Yet the United States, UN, and EU remain silent concerning the Islamic Curtain, even though it is more vicious and impenetrable than the Iron or Bamboo Curtains ever were. (p. 186.)

This is nonsense. There is no such thing as an "Islamic Curtain". This is just demonization of Muslims and a crude attempt to demonize the Muslim world as being the moral equivalent of the Soviet Union and Maoist China.

***

Hunt cites a 1994 documentary by Steve Emerson (pp. 14, 188). Steve Emerson is cited by the Center for American Progress as one of the main "misinformers" of the Islamophobia Network.

***

Hunt insists that Muslims cannot be integrated into mainstream society.

It is nearly impossible for Muslims to be integrated into society as other immigrants have been, because Islam does not allow any distinction between religion and the state. (p. 191.)

Similar accusations were made against Catholic immigrants back in the day. Such words inspire unnecessary fear. There is a wide range of diversity among Muslims. Of course Muslims can be integrated into society. Indeed, in many ways, they already are. Although without question there are many problems that must be addressed, not the least of which is the problem of hostility towards Muslims in general, which is often called Islamophobia.

***

Hunt's insistence on stereotyping Islam in a simple manner and in viewing Islam as hostile and united political force leads to the following bizarre false equivalence concerning the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-8.

In the last chapter, we made brief mention of the eight-year war between Iran and Iraq, both Muslim countries. They used one thousand tins of poison gas on one another. Many thousands of young boys were sacrificed to clear mine fields for the troops following them (and were deceived into doing so by Islam's promise of Paradise with unnumbered dark-eyed virgins for those who die in jihad.) (p. 193.)

It was Iraq, not Iran, that used chemical weapons. Many of the components necessary for making those chemical weapons were imported from overseas. Iran was perfectly capable of reproducing those weapons but Khomeini decreed such weapons to be contrary to Islam and because of this fatwa Iran never made chemical weapons against the Iraqis.

It was the religiously inclined Iran, not Iraq, that used young soldiers to manually clear mine fields.

By stereotyping Islam as some simplistic Wahhabi like movement and refusing to note the numerous political factions that composes the political landscape of the Middle East Hunt has made these errors. This is the result of relying on simple stereotypes to make judgments regarding a vastly more complicated region of the world.

***

On pages 202-4 there is a section entitled "What's wrong with multiculturalism?" In it are the following words:

Students are being taught that the values America has stood for over the centuries, rather than something to be cultivated and preserved, are something to be embarrassed about and actually to be despised. ...

This brought an invasion of Eastern gurus to the West and resulted in the New Age movement, where anything is okay except saying that something isn't okay. To celebrate the new broadmindedness, public schools (especially universities) began to glorify anything African or "native," no matter from where. White skin was out and color was in. White was ugly and wicked, black was beautiful and could do no wrong. Business and commerce, which had built our civilization, were damned for destroying the earth. Environmentalism, no matter how extreme and destructive in its own peculiar way, was the new darling. It is in this context that Islam and Muslims have gained an admiration that they do not deserve. (p. 202-203.)

To put it politely many would disagree with this description of what has been happening since the 1950s. To condemn injustice such as racial discrimination is not in any way an attempt to make whites "ugly and wicked" but an attempt to address injustices in society so that we can all live together in peace and happiness.

It is strange that Hunt chose to describe Native Americans as ""native"" considering that it is a fact that the Native Americans arrived in the United States long before the arrival of Europeans. They are called Native Americans because they are the native inhabitants of the land.

Geert Wilders, one of the most popular politicians in the Netherlands has warned that "the country's democracy is under threat and [has] called for a five-year halt to non-Western immigration." ... Wilders' own life has been threatened many times for speaking out about the danger that Islam poses to his country and to all of Europe. (p. 209.)

Hunt has some words of criticism for Wilders. That he is too kind towards Muslims in Hunt's opinion.

Even Wilders still imagines that the problem is radical Muslims. Those who have begun to speak out and cal for action against the growing terrorism in Europe must be willing to admit that Islam itself is the problem. Until then, they will be tilting at windmills and missing entirely. (p. 210. Emphasis in original.)

***

While referring to the riots in France in 2005 Hunt insists that Muslims having difficulty gaining employment qualifications is (here it comes) because they are trying to take over the country.

Muslims' refusal to be assimilated into the community around them causes their lack of qualification for jobs. They attempt to create eventually a Muslim state as Islam requires. Until each Western country demands that immigrants conform to its national rules, the situation not only in France but elsewhere will only become worse. (p. 211.)

That is an absurd assertion. People want to advance themselves by gaining employment. It is absurd to portray higher rates of unemployment as evidence that those Muslims are trying to take over society and create "a Muslim state". That is not how conquest happens. Those Muslims in France are not trying to conquer France. This paranoid accusation is not true.

***

Hunt also condemns Israeli politician Shimon Peres. He is characterized as overly eager to make peace with the Palestinians.

What madness! He [Shimon Peres] has eaten those ridiculously irrational words and gotten indigestion from them many times since. (p. 240.)

***

Here Hunt fear mongers about the children of Muslims.

Every child in Palestinian, Syrian, Egyptian, et al., schools knows this "new policy" is a lie. They are all taught to hate and work toward the destruction of Israel. There are literally millions of youths in madrasas in Pakistan and elsewhere whose education is aimed toward, and whose greatest ambition is, to become suicide bombers. (p. 254.)

Children are children, whether Muslim or not. We all know how often children choose to ignore what their elders tell them to do. Why does Hunt assume that somehow this is not the case among some Muslim children?

***

Hunt insists on stereotyping Islam as inherently violent and expansionist in nature. As part of this stereotype Hunt mocks attempts by Muslims to persuade follow Muslims not to fall under the influence of Al Qaeda-like extremists.

... we have an organized effort ... to say, "It ain't so folks; Islam is, and always has been, solidly against suicide/homicide bombers!" (p. 254.)

But suicide bombing only began to be used in the 1970s. Hamas began using suicide bombing in 1993, about seven years after its founding. Following the massacre in Hebron by Kahane follower Baruch Goldstein in 1994 Hamas began using suicide bombers against civilians. Suicide bombing did not even exist until the 1970s. That inconvenient fact appears to have escaped Hunt's notice.

Is this all part of a new disinformation program aimed at relaxing the Westfor the final take-over? Time will tell. (p. 258.)

There will be no "final take-over" by Muslims in the West. It is paranoid nonsense to insist that Muslims are plotting to unleash some kind of "final take-over" in the nations of the West. It is not going to happen. It is not right to portray such a thing as a plausible possibility as insinuated above.

Moreover, at the very heart of Islam is a determination to destroy Israel, which, if it could be accomplished, would prove the Bible false, including its promise of the Messiah. (p. 340.)

How is it possible that "at the very heart of Islam is a determination to destroy Israel" considering that the State of Israel only existed from 1948 onward? What was Islam doing all that time (A.D. 610-1948) when the State of Israel did not exist?

Sinking of the USS Liberty (1967)

(Before getting into this sensitive and tragic topic it needs to be mentioned that it is not the purpose of this post to tell people what to think about this terrible incident in which 34 Americans violently died. Rather the purpose of this post is to note how Hunt discusses this.)

On pages 245-248 Hunt discusses the sinking of the USS Liberty by Israeli forces during the Six Day War which killed 34 American personnel.

Hunt confidently asserts that the USS Liberty was deliberately targeted and attacked by the State of Israel's military. He is utterly unconvinced of the assertion that the USS Liberty was mistaken "for a hostile Egyptian ship." (p. 246.)

The Israelis ... must have had an urgent security reason for attacking this American ship and incurring the wrath of their only ally and chief supporter. Obviously, the White House must have been caught betraying Israel or it surely would not have accepted Israel's contrived excuse that it mistook the Liberty for a hostile Egyptian ship. Clearly there was a mutual cover-up originating at the highest levels of the Israeli and U.S. governments. (pp. 246-247.)

Hunt asserts that the USS Liberty was helping the Arab nations that fought in the Six Day War.

Or was the real disgrace a U.S. betrayal of Israel to curry Arab favor, and that was the reason for the cover-up? There is no other rational explanation. (p. 247.)

Hunt's curious anti-British perspective also appears while discussing this deadly sinking of the USS Liberty.

It [the USS Liberty] began to sweep Israel, sucking in every Israeli military communication and relaying it all to the British Secret Service's giant electronic listening post on Cyprus, which had the capacity of filtering, decoding, and analyzing the mass of electronics the Liberty was accumulating. This was then transmitted to the Arab armed forces, giving complete maps of every Israeli military movement in advance. (p. 245.)

I have no idea if this is true, or even partially true. I advice much caution regarding this assertion.

While discussing this deadly incident he cites a Stars and Stripes article from January 16, 2004 and page 422 of Abba Eban's book, Personal Witness. These footnotes may be seen on page 260. That is all the evidence Hunt presents to back up his assertion regarding that tragic incident.

The 2005 Disengagement from Gaza

Appendix
D (pp. 397-401) contains comments with an individual who witnessed the
disengagement from the Gaza Strip by the State of Israel in 2005. The
anonymous individual who is interviewed notes that the Israeli settlers in Gaza were not
ultra-Orthodox. Of course not. Those persons are national religious Israeli
Jews.

"These were not the
ultra-Orthodox, who are just waiting for the Messiah to return. These
Jews believe in the Bible and the God of Israel, but they believe that
you also need to work the land. These people are hard workers who think
that if Israel has all of the Promised Land, the Messiah will come
sooner. And even though the Gaza Strip is small, it's still a piece of
the land [of Israel], and for them, it's just a disaster to give up any
part of it.... (p. 398.)

The disengagement is also
discussed on pages 228-232. In that section Hunt quotes a letter by
Benjamin Netanyahu which condemns the disengagement and announced his
resignation as Minister of Finance (pp. 229-230). (For whatever reason
there is no footnote citing where Hunt acquired this letter.)

From the moment you [Prime Minister Sharon] presented your disengagement plan to me, I told you I was against a unilateral withdrawal in which Israel would receive nothing in return. (p. 229)

The
disengagement was "a unilateral withdrawal". To make peace one must at
least talk to the other side. That did not happen with the decision to implement the
disengagement. Instead the Sharon led government of the State of Israel
unilaterally decided to take the Israeli soldiers and Israeli settlers
out of the Gaza Strip. The disengagement was not a peace making exercise. It was a cost cutting exercise.

But
little did Hunt know the disengagement indeed proved to be a disaster. For the Palestinians. In the toxic relations between the Gaza Strip and its occupier, the
State of Israel, the vast majority of fatalities have been endured by
the Palestinians in Gaza. The Gaza Strip is still occupied by the State of Israel to this day.

The Third Temple

Hunt insists that a third temple will be built before Christ's return. But while HWA maintained that such a temple might be built by Israeli Jews on the other hand Hunt insists this third temple will be built by the European Antichrist.

Most Israelis, whether religious or secular, are as determined to see the Temple rebuilt [This is inaccurate.] as the Muslims are to prevent it--even to the point of denying that a Jewish temple was ever there! The Bible [as interpreted by Hunt and many Christians happen to disagree with this assertion] declares that it will indeed be rebuilt. (p. 340.)

This is complete nonsense. The vast majority of Israeli Jews have no interest in constructing a third temple. Those who do call for such a thing to be done are a small bunch of extremists among National Religious Israeli Jews. Hunt is projecting his fantasies upon those Israeli Jews.

At least Hunt, unlike HWA, is a bit more specific on this topic. He states that this third temple will be created by the Antichrist.

In Hunt's eschatology the Antichrist fulfills the roles of both the European dictator and the final Pope (false prophet) while Armstrongism maintains that there are two separate individuals fated to do these things. Armstrongism tends to assume that others are fated to create a Third Temple.

It should be stated that such speculations that a third temple would be constructed contributed to inspiring one Denis Michael Rohan to commit an arson attack against Al Aqsa Mosque that, among other things, destroyed a priceless artifact dating back to the era of Saladin. This ghastly act of vandalism nearly provoked a Palestinian intifada eighteen years before such a thing would actually occur. That man was influenced by HWA.

It is also to be noted that in all of Hunt's speculations about a future Third Temple there is no mention or acknowledgment of the tragic events of October 1990 in which at least sixteen Palestinians violently died during protests against an attempt by third temple extremists to lay a corner stone for a third temple. In all the 456 pages of this book this terrible tragedy is never even acknowledged.

And at present the Holy Land is wracked by a wave of terrible violence that seems to show no sign of ending at present. To a great extent it was started by frustration that some Palestinians were being banned from entering Al Aqsa Mosque while at the same time some Jews were allowed by the Israeli government to visit it, some of those Jews even praying there contrary to the agreement the State of Israel made which forbade Jews praying in there.

Speculations regarding some future third temple fail to help solve the severe problems in the Holy Land at present. It is not helpful in regards to the current situation.

May peace soon come to the Holy Land.

Miscellaneous Errors

Every now and then little errors occur in Hunt's book. Here are some of them.

Hizbullah
is based in Lebanon, mainly southern Lebanon because it happens to be a
Shiite Lebanese party and the population of southern Lebanon are
predominantly Shiite. It is true that they are supported by Syria but
Hizbullah is headquartered in Lebanon, not Syria.

The average Westerner imagines that terrorism is something new that began in the 1990s with the Intifada in Israel... (p. 125.)

The first Intifada began in December 1987, not "the 1990s" as incorrectly implied above.

... the land lay barren for centuries before the Jews' return leading to Israel's rebirth in 1948.... (p. 275.)

This
is not true. The Holy Land was continuously inhabited. It was never a
barren land or an empty land or sparsely populated at any time for millennia. It was
continuously inhabited by people.

Intifada--Uprising of Palestinians against Israel instituted by Arafat in December 1987. (p. 406.)

It
is not true that the first Intifada was "instituted by Arafat" as Hunt
maintains here. Rather the first Intifada was started by acts of mass
protests by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Arafat and
those with him then based in Tunis found themselves compelled to somehow respond
to what was happening on the ground in the Holy Land.

Conclusion

Having read this book again I am compelled to say it is Islamophobic. I have no joy in saying this. I was never a follower of Dave Hunt. In fact I only heard about Dave Hunt because LCG's writings cited him in an anti-Catholic article. But considering the simplistic way Hunt portrays Muslims I can come to no other conclusion.

Reading this it is saddening to see Hunt present to his readers ideas and stereotypes that are simply untrue. It is saddening that he chose to ignore criticism by other authors of what he wrote and simply ignore them. Readers deserve to know that some of the information presented in this book is wrong or at least slanted to an unrealistic degree.

If You are new please read this

Hand in Hand for Syria

Keep Somalia's Remittances Open

I encourage readers to sign this petition from Oxfam calling upon the U.S. government to let the Somali diaspora continue to send remittance to their loved ones in Somalia.

Moves have been made to shut down such remittances from Somalis in America. Many Somalis need these remittances. The remittances to Somalia are larger than foreign aid contributions and are a lifeline to these people caught in trouble and turmoil.

It is true that HWA said that some Eastern European states would break away from Moscow's orbit and join the European Empire he said would arise at any moment. But he never talked of the Soviet Union collapsing. He did not teach that. Also he portrayed the rise of the European Empire to be far quicker then what has actually happened. In Mystery of the Ages Christ was supposed to return by 2005 at the most.

So assertions that the fall of the Berlin Wall somehow prove that HWA was right is just complete nonsense spread by people who, for whatever reason, are still in denial that HWA was a false prophet who merely talked out of his own "human reasoning".

Truth about Roderick C. Meredith

What sort of man is he? A man who could say things like this.

"Mr. Armstrong has reminded us again that we are to disfellowship any members who attend GTA's [Garner Ted Armstrong's] campaigns, church services or other meetings. Some of our weaker members apparently do not realize that this man is in direct rebellion against God and His government! We must not allow them, or ourselves, to rationalize about this matter, to try to "help the underdog," or in any other way lend support to one whose gross immorality, whose long standing "play acting" and hypocrisy, and whose direct insubordination to the Government of God has long been and is now a source of confusion and DIVISION among God's people. So, as per Mr. Armstrong's instruction, I charge and exhort every one of you faithful ministers of the living Christ to explain this in no uncertain terms to your members, to warn them about this cause of division and then to disfellowship any who consort with GTA or any of his fellows." (Roderick C. Meredith, Pastor's Report, May 21, 1979, pp. 1-2.)

David Robinson on Roderick C. Meredith

"During the ten years I have been an employee of the Worldwide Church, you have been poorly spoken of by most of the ministers and employees I have known. I vividly remember the absolute unbounded glee that was openly expressed by a good number of respected men in the church when you were first "shanghaied." [In 1972.] I could begin by naming names, which I am sure would shock you. I was one of the few who stood, where possible, for you. Your tenure as superintendent of ministers, as I believe the office was then called, was looked on as nightmarish. While you held office during the years of growth, most of those whom I know gave you very little credit for that growth. Almost everyone whom I know, whether they be former friends of yours, or continuing foes, recalls insensitive and terrible things you have done. Without exception, at least among my acquaintances, they all credit you with an unbridled lust for power and list you as one who is willing to pay the price of gaining that power, no matter what. I have, through many of the last few years, believed you had principles you would not violate. Many a man of experience in the church assured me of my error. Events have proven me wrong and them right. Mr. Armstrong has himself been widely quoted as saying of you that you were so righteous that you were so "righteous you were unrighteous." " (David Robinson, Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web, Chapter 16, p. 207.)

Of course it is impossible for me to personally verify these assertions but people deserve to know what this knowledgeable man had to say about him.